You mean to say 'life' is something non-existant?
Isnt there any difference between 'life' and 'death'?
Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
You mean to say 'life' is something non-existant?
Isnt there any difference between 'life' and 'death'?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
And yet life itself cannot be reduced to a state of perfect functionality. A person may still be alive in their brain even though their body is totally non-functional and on life support. A person in a coma is even alive while their body is on life support. The state of aliveness--many times directly linked to being conscious--is often seen as a contributing factor to a person getting better. When accident victims are rescued they are often talked to to keep them conscious and lucid as this helps them to stay alive. Strange that consciousness should have such an obvious effect on the brain's own ability to continue functioning.
Prove it. I know you can't because we haven't believed such things in science for centuries.
Actually what was believed for centuries was "the spontaneous generation of life" (from "dead matter") - A case of life arising without any life. The classic example was maggots crawling out of a piece of rotting meat. The some scientist put the fresh meat in a glass jar with some cheese cloth covering the top, so flies could not lay their eggs in it and let it rot. Then "the spontaneous generation of life" was dis proven. Science has been undermining beliefs with demonstrated facts for several hundred years - or longer if it is true the world is not flat and that the Earth is not the center of the universe with the sun and stars all revolving about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean that "life" is merely a description of activity. "Death" is a descriptor for the absence of that activity. Neither are in and of themselves "existant" as anything other than a perception
"Moving" and "stationary" are likewise descriptors for an activity and lack thereof. One might even consider them properties. And whether you think such descriptors or properties exist or not is rather dependent upon what you understand "exist" to mean.
Sure, and for cheese to taste like cheese it has be cheesy. Meaninglessly trivial tautologies.
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
IOW, "life" is a useful and pragmatic distinction. Again, you are trying to equivocate words into meaninglessness.
Well done, you've also picked up on the weakness in his argument.
So you attack the argument by arguing that you also hold the same view... that "life" is a characteristic that describes certain activities, just as motion is the characteristic of those objects that are moving. Yes, one can clarify more precisely what those activities are beyond merely a word utilising the same root (e.g. Referring to "moving" as the descriptor for an object undergoing change in position or time with respect to a reference point rather than referring to "moving" as the descriptor for motion) but the analogy is valid, and you confirm you also consider it so through the extract you produced.
So I struggle to see on what grounds you are now arguing?
Indeed it is, but the argument hansda put forward was an attempt to conclude that life must therefore be something that causes, rather than just a characteristic / descriptor.
Rather you just seem to be trolling for an argument when your own words suggest that you actually agree with my analysis. But you seem to be blinkered to that.
This is not very difficult to prove. As long as life is there in the cell, it is a living cell. The moment life is out of the cell, it becomes a dead cell. If again life is put into the dead cell, it becomes a living cell as is evidenced from 'organ transplantation' from a dead-body to a living-body. So, it can be considered that life is external to a cell, just as force is external to a mass. With the input of life to a cell, it becomes animate.
What causes this activity(which you consider as life)?
Absence of 'what', causes this 'absence of activity'(death according to you)?
You mean to say, 'life' and 'death' do not exist in reality but they exist only in our perception. Are they(life and death) like dreams?
So, when a mass is moving, its property is 'moving' and when the mass is at rest, its property is 'rest'.
Instead you should have said 'inertia' is the property of a mass. It requires a 'force' to change this state of inertia. Similarly 'life' is required to animate a cell.
If force can exist, life also can exist. 'Force' is external to a mass. Similarly 'life' is external to a 'cell'.
Uh - no. The organ in a transplant is not dead.
Is the 'motion' of a mass without any cause?
So, how can the 'characteristics of life' be without any cause?
What do you mean?
If an organ from a dead-body is not transplanted to a living-body, can the organ remain alive?
When a person dies, that does not mean all the cells and/or organs in the person are dead. It takes time for the rest of the body to catch on. Yes, they will eventually die, in which case the organ is no longer suitable for a transplant. IOW - you are not putting "life" back into a "dead cell". You are taking living tissue and placing it into a living host where it can continue to live.
So, without a 'living host'; a living tissue/cell can not survive. That means 'life' is necessary for a 'living tissue' to survive.
Do you enjoy moving goalposts? You made the claim of putting life into dead cells (Post # 428). That is not what is going on.
The view I find to be most rational is it is caused by the underlying arrangement and interaction of the molecules/atoms/quarks/matter.
Absence of the specific pattern and activity of those underlying molecules/atoms/quarks/matter.
Depends how you define reality, and what you consider it means when you say something is "real". I consider illusions to be real, for example, but that are merely different than what they appear to us to be. "Life" and "death" are descriptors for our interpretation of characteristics that certain things display (or do not display).
Are they like dreams? Certainly in the way that "dreaming" is another descriptor for certain activity. As are words like "motion".
Is that what you meant?
No, inertia is different, and not a descriptor of activity. If I had wanted to use inertia then I would have written it.
Do you understand what inertia is? Force does not change a state of inertia. Force changes motion.
Force is a descriptor and measure of mass * acceleration. It does not exist separate from those. It exists as a descriptor of activity, and as a relative measure of that activity: the acceleration of mass. It is not external to it.
Likewise life "exists" as a descriptor of activity. It is not external to it.
Generally no, but radioactive decay does not appear to have a cause, or no observable cause, and decay can throw out some particles with mass.
Otherwise all motion requires a cause.
They're not... they are caused by the same things... the underlying motion and interaction of the particles etc, and it is only our interpretation of that pattern of activity that we call "life".
Then perhaps you can explain how a dead person can be brought back to life with electroshock. That's not putting life into someone, that's putting electricity into someone. Unless you think that life is the same thing as electrical activity.
That would more a dying person rather than a dead person. These paddles can't bring every dead person back to life. There is a point of no return.
I understand that, but Hansda doesn't.
So let me get this straight. You are calling his argument weak because you claim it is the same sort of tautology that yours is?
Apparently your reaction to his opinion is the culprit of you being blissfully unaware of your ridiculous projection.
And I almost missed this little gem:
Sarkus said:
Just more of your usual attempts at equivocating into utter meaninglessness.
Cellular life does not end at cardiac arrest. You even quoted him as referring to cellular life.
Partly because of the tautology, given that he is using "life" and "living" the way I used "motion" and "moving" - and you concurred with this flaw in that you have also identified and provided further example of ("cheese" and "cheesey") etc.
But also because he is confusing a descriptor / characteristic with an actual existent thing, equating life fuelling a body the way petrol fuels a car.
You also picked up this flaw in his argument because you quoted (from wiki): "Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not" - i.e. that it is a descriptor of certain activity.
So again, I'm wondering wtf you continue to argue for???
No, again, that's right, everyone is supposed to have the same philosophical understanding of what it means "to exist". Are we all meant to limit our thoughts to whatever dictionary you use says? You are discussing philosophical matters - so learn to realise that not everyone shares your views on everything, that language is rather important, and that what one person means by a term is not necessarily what everyone else does. I would have thought you would have realised that by now, but instead you just seem to conclude that it is an attempt at equivocation so that you avoid having to deal with alternative views.
And that, coupled with your desire to argue against a view that you also hold just because I have worded it differently, is nothing short of trolling in my view.
Pathetic.